sad/ase lessons learned
DESCRIPTION
SAD/ASE Lessons Learned. Phil Mutton August 13, 2008. A Safety Re-Assessment at Jefferson Lab in Accordance with DOE-O-420.2B. Background. 2002 Current version Rev 5 (ASE is included in JLab FSAD) 2005 Accelerator Safety Order (ASO), DOE-0-420.2B - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
SAD/ASE Lessons Learned
A Safety Re-Assessment at Jefferson Labin Accordance with DOE-O-420.2B
Phil MuttonAugust 13, 2008
Background
• 2002 Current version Rev 5 (ASE is included in JLab FSAD)• 2005 Accelerator Safety Order (ASO), DOE-0-420.2B
– Establish accelerator-specific safety requirements– Distinguish from other supplementary safety and health
requirements (e.g., Worker Safety and Health Program)– Clearly document analysis, controls, and basis for accelerator
safety envelope• 2006 M&O contract awarded to Jefferson Science Associates• 2007 DOE and Independent reviews of current FSAD• 2008 FSAD Revision 6 Project
– Update FSAD to Rev 6 will achieve ASO compliance
Final Safety Assessment Document (FSAD) Revision Project
• Findings with respect to the ASO• Update FSAD and Accelerator Safety Envelope (ASE)
– we are here (8/12/08)• Final review and approval of FSAD/ASE• Next steps:
– Revise USI Process– Train staff on FSAD and USI Process
Current FSAD (rev 5, 2002)
• Largely conclusions– Limited description of the analysis itself– Does not describe accident scenarios
• Limited description of controls or rationale for them• Too much detail of less relevant (industrial safety)
topics• Accelerator Safety Envelope (ASE) includes non-
accelerator related parameters (e.g. FEL laser parameters)
• Basis for the ASE is not described
The Project to Update the FSAD
• Update FSAD – a learning exercise:– Reorganize per ASO, and address specific omissions,
etc., noted by third party reviewers– 1st draft: clearer, but accident scenarios and rationale
not apparent in many areas– 2nd draft: accident scenarios tabulated and controls
identified, but scenarios and controls not well “connected.” ASE basis (rationale) incomplete
– 3rd (hopefully final) draft: review in progress
FSAD Revision 6
• Follows guidance in ASO guide, DOE-G-420.1-2• Updates and expands description of relevant features and
controls (Personnel Safety System, shielding, beam dump cooling, cryogenic systems…)
• Eliminates industrial safety aspects• Adds a table of accident scenarios, identifies bounding cases• Lists Credited Controls vs. other controls (defense in depth)• Refines ASE details and describes ASE basis• Includes Shielding Policy
Controls
• All credited controls were in place, but were not identified as such in the existing SAD - added in rev 6
• Several administrative controls were inadequately documented (unclear or not readily traceable to requirements:– Surveillance of engineered controls – Excavation controls (near accelerator)– Training– Maintenance
If I were to do it again…• Don’t assume the update is just an “adjustment”
– for us this was a re-analysis• Be more self-critical of existing (pre-ASO) SAD• Spend more time up front to understand expectations
behind the ASO and guide– Collaborate with reviewers/approvers on document organization
(for a better first draft)• Start with a clean sheet of paper
– Organize the logic – Do the analysis – Document the analysis
Organize the Logic
Risk Matrix
Accident Scenarios
ASECredited Controls
Defense in Depth Controls
Organize the Logic
• Design the document for ease of use– Lay out risk matrix– Define criteria for control levels– Map out the accident scenarios (~45) – start building
the table– Design the controls tables, credited (~25) and defense
in depth (~30)– Design the ASE layout– Map controls to ASE basis– Outline the body of the document for easy cross
referencing to tables
Do the Analysis• Define assumptions – fixed shielding (e.g. underground)• Populate accident scenarios, controls and ASE tables• Perform calculations, modeling, etc.• Identify or prepare supporting analysis documents
Document the Details• Insert re-usable text into the new outline as appropriate
– eliminate details not relevant to the analysis• Add new analysis and description details to support
conclusions, provide rationale, etc.
JLab FSAD Rev 6Are we there yet?
• Ease of Use? – FSAD Rev 6 ~100 pages. I thought this rev would
be shorter (Rev 5 was ~95 pages)• How to judge what should be in a SAD vs. Reference
documents?• Does it address the “audience?”
– safety analysts, USI reviewers, operators, managers, engineers, scientists, and technicians?
• Success will to be judged by the document users